Religion Folau

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

My own context affords me contact with people who appear otherwise normal who are actually members of a fundamentalist and isolationist cult. So I have seen first hand how people are raised and indoctrinated, then had that belief validated repeatedly in their community.

I struggle with the morality if this one.

I have personal experience if staying with an old childhood friend whose had a lifelong struggle with alcohol and heroin addiction.

Somehow she became involved with a fundamental8st cult though although very openly gay and intriduced through a gay lover. Forced to interact with them in an an isolated town it was genuinely horrific.

I saw a woman driven mad having to disown her son who was excommunicated because he wouldn't give up drinking and smoking. A poor family disowned if their limited inheritance by the manipulation of a dying woman's will to assist in funding a new church.

Add to that the public stories abiut church elders telling women suffering domestic violence to try and be better wives.

The constant self denial she put herself through was just breathtaking.

Part of me wants tk seriously consider a pogrom to cleanse society of these people. Then I remember they can all walk away if fhey wish.

My friend was excommunicated for public drunkenness eventually after a period if being forced to sit silently at the rear of the church during ceremonies.

I'd seriously argue their cult is more damaging to people than alchoholism or herion addiction though.

 

[The Passenger]

Well we know one career path Izzy won't be taking in his post footballing career and that is public speaking.

https://www.theroar.com.au/rugby-un...-christmas-and-easter-is-for-heathens-748176/

 

[Malifice]

One should be able to express their religious beliefs (no matter how stupid it may sound) without losing their job.

Even if that expression of religious beliefs is bigoted and discriminatory, contrary to your employment contract and costs your employer tens of millions of dollars from sponsors pulling out?

Israel gets well remunerated for his job, and in return he is expected to not ostracize Rugby Australias sponsors, behave himself off the field, comply with his employment contract, and act in the best interests of the sport, without bringing the game into disrepute.

When your employee goes around posting shit on social media that not only contravenes the terms of his employment contract but also costs you tens of millions of dollars, I'm pretty sure your argument would drastically change.

 

[NinjaSwan]

Let's have some perspective on this.

Andrew Gaff - sucker punches an 18 year kid in a game last year. The same action outside the realms of the playing arena would lead to an arrest and jail time for the perpetrator.

He got 8 weeks for what he did. I think most would agree that's a fair enough penalty. He was punished accordingly and has now recently returned to playing again. Didn't lose he job.

Israel Folau - posts religious tweets that people thought were silly, stupid or offensive. He lost his job.

Which is worse......breaking an unsuspecting kids jaw or posting stupid shit on twitter?

If you're gonna tell me that Folua thing is worse....then I have nothing for you and I can't be bothered.

Exactly. The problem is they don't have anything for you. It's just a world of everyone having an opinion but if a certain group doesn't agree with you, look out.

This is a terrible comparison, it's not about which action is worse.

Gaff punching Brayshaw was something he immediately regretted, he's been punished for it and realises what he did was wrong and has spoken against it. He isn't going around endorsing king hits and claiming he was innocent, if he was then presumably he'd be sacked as well.

Folau continues to spout bigoted views with seemingly no intention of backing down or changing his mind, which makes his employment untenable.

 

[legend166]

Biblical literacy and general knowledge of orthodox Christian theology is probably at its lowest point so I'll try and explain some things to people since there's a lot of people in here who think they're actually really clever because they throw out trite and stale "bububu mixed fabrics!" lines.

The standard Christian sexual ethic, which while more complex than this, is essentially that sexual activity is permitted (and encouraged!) within a consensual marriage relationship between one man and one woman and forbidden outside of that relationship. The justification for this is that this context aligns with God's design and is the best environment for human flourishing and happiness.

This sexual ethic was not developed out of the Old Testament Laws given to the theocratic nation of Israel but out of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the books of the New Testament

Christians are not, have not, and never will be bound by the judicial and ceremonial laws found in Leviticus. These laws (such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, mixing fabrics, ritualistic cleansing, the penalty of stoning for offences, etc, etc) were given to a specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. This has been standard, orthodox Christian doctrine for two thousand years. In fact, the early church had this very problem which is outlined in the New Testament book of Acts (which is a history of the establishment of the Christian church in its first 20 years). As hundreds and thousands of Gentiles (non-Jews) joined what was essentially a Jewish movement, there were questions on what that meant - did they have to get circumcised? Did they need to follow Jewish law? And the answer was no. Although, and this is pertinent to this topic, they were advised to abstain from sexual immorality.

So no, you're not actually pointing out some huge contradiction when you say that any Christian opposed to homosexuality should actually be stoning people for working on the sabbath or not wearing mixed fabrics. If that was all it took I don't think this whole Christianity thing would have lasted two thousand years and come to spread to every corner of the globe.

Anyway, as for Israel Folau - he lacks a certain, uh, tact when it comes to his evangelistic efforts, but as a professing Christian, it's certainly a sobering thought to think that Christians who hold to the basic Christian sexual ethic are being pushed out of public life.

I also find it an interesting reflection on society that this is considered an offence that will basically see him barred from all sporting competitions in Australia and yet you run down the list of offences we have no trouble over looking and find some horrific things. Smash a woman in the face with a glass? No worries, we'll welcome you back with open arms. Go on a rampage, invade a home and threaten to kill someone? Meh, it was two years ago!

Christians are also certainly not the only people to hold to a sexual ethic that precludes homosexual activities. I mean I know the answer, but I'm always curious as to how Islam gets a pass on this in modern Western culture.

 

[Slartibartfast]

He didn't single out homosexuality, he included it along with a raft of other things.

Playing with semantics to justify your hate of homosexuals.

 

[Freshwater]

He is obviously a zealot. The parts of the bible he quoted, then extrapolated his own way. “The sexually immoral won’t enter the kingdom of heaven” doesn’t necessarily mean gay any more than straight people. Our own conscience deep down knows what sexual immorality looks like. It’s up to each of us to live life the best we can without being lectured to.

 

[Slartibartfast]

A bloke that I work with, he does fifo from overseas to Australia and back out again (Aussie ex-pat) had a disagreement with a female 'comedienne' online last year over her insensitive comments with regards to ANZAC Day. She abused him, he told he even though he had been raised not to assault women that he could consider making an exception for her. She googled his name, found his LinkedIn account and emailed our company. He was pretty close to losing his job for 6 months while it was investigated. In the end the company looked at a lot of her other work and decided that she was frequently deliberately provocative so he got to keep his job.

She is a darling of the inner city Melbourne community. Probably a Victorian version of Clem Ford.

I told him he is 50s years old and asked him what he's doing posting that sort of shit in response to more shit. He learnt a tough lesson (that common sense probably should have told him he didn't need to learn)

So your workmate is a heckler , got called out, then physically threatened her and now he is squealing coz he emailed her company.
Your drawing long bows again.
Issy is a creep who deserves to lose his contract.

 

[Freshwater]

Biblical literacy and general knowledge of orthodox Christian theology is probably at its lowest point so I'll try and explain some things to people since there's a lot of people in here who think they're actually really clever because they throw out trite and stale "bububu mixed fabrics!" lines.

The standard Christian sexual ethic, which is complex, is essentially that sexual activity is permitted (and encouraged!) within a consensual marriage relationship between one man and one woman and forbidden outside of that relationship. The justification for this is that this context aligns with God's design and is the best environment for human flourishing and happiness.

This sexual ethic was not developed out of the Old Testament Laws given to the theocratic nation of Israel but out of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the books of the New Testament

Christians are not, have not, and never will be bound by the judicial and ceremonial laws found in Leviticus. These laws (such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, mixing fabrics, ritualistic cleansing, the penalty of stoning for offences, etc, etc) were given to a specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. This has been standard, orthodox Christian doctrine for two thousand years. In fact, the early church had this very problem which is outlined in the New Testament book of Acts (which is a history of the establishment of the Christian church in its first 20 years). As hundreds and thousands of Gentiles (non-Jews) joined what was essentially a Jewish movement, there were questions on what that meant - did they have to get circumcised? Did they need to follow Jewish law? And the answer was no. Although, and this is pertinent to this topic, they were advised to abstain from sexual immorality.

So no, you're not actually pointing out some huge contradiction when you say that any Christian opposed to homosexuality should actually be stoning people for working on the sabbath or not wearing mixed fabrics. If that was all it took I don't think this whole Christianity thing would have lasted two thousand years and come to spread to every corner of the globe.

Anyway, as for Israel Folau - he lacks a certain, uh, tact when it comes to his evangelistic efforts, but as a professing Christian, it's certainly a sobering thought to think that Christians who hold to the basic Christian sexual ethic are being pushed out of public life.

I also find it an interesting reflection on society that this is considered an offence that will basically see him barred from all sporting competitions in Australia and yet you run down the list of offences we have no trouble over looking and find some horrific things. Smash a woman in the face with a glass? No worries, we'll welcome you back with open arms. Go on a rampage, invade a home and threaten to kill someone? Meh, it was two years ago!

You said it way better than I could, I think yours is the best post on this.

 

[Back One Out]

Who else did he pick on then?
He's allowed to say it, doesn't give him a free pass though

Free pass for what exactly? Expressing his religious views?

His tweet read:

Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators... HELL AWAITS YOU! Repent!

This is not Folau's own personal hate speech. It's religious doctrine. So if Folau's tweet is deemed unacceptable, then how about we ban the Holy Bible and ban Christianity while we're at it? It's a homophobic belief system. Same goes for Islam and the Koran.

People should stop picking on individual church-goers like Israel Folau and take issue with his church. Utterly spineless of our society to single out Folau while turning a blind eye to the source material and allowing hundreds of thousands of people to continue to practise their institutionalised homophobic hate mongering.

How about we take a stand this Easter and picket the churches on Good Friday and Easter Sunday?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Playing with semantics to justify your hate of homosexuals.

Folau's defenders think they can word game his way out of this

 

[nineteen eighty]

For starters - I already have.

Folau targets me in his rant (probably more than once). I just simply don't judge myself on what Folau has to say.

The bloke has views well out of step with what I believe - and whilst we have the right to freedom of speech free of the fear of imprisonment, all rights come with responsibilities. I have no issue with him being sacked or ridiculed.

And just on your example - actually - what I was highlighting is that is not socially acceptable to fat shame someone, but it is socially acceptable to criticise skinny women.

But as soon as a "protected minority" is mentioned - rabid defence comes up. The same defence that is not afforded others.

You yourself clung to one protected minority.

It's fornicators like you that give the rest of us a bad name

 

[The_Ru]

...

Anyway, as for Israel Folau - he lacks a certain, uh, tact when it comes to his evangelistic efforts, but as a professing Christian, it's certainly a sobering thought to think that Christians who hold to the basic Christian sexual ethic are being pushed out of public life.
...

Could it be because most Christian religions do not hold to "the basic Christian sexual ethic"? If they did, divorce would still not be recognised. Society progresses and religions either progress with them or become irrelevant. Israel Folau represents the most regressive approach to christianity.

 

[Taylor]

Could it be because most Christian religions do not hold to "the basic Christian sexual ethic"? If they did, divorce would still not be recognised. Society progresses and religions either progress with them or become irrelevant. Israel Folau represents the most regressive approach to christianity.

Hollywood has played a big part in "progressing" society towards less commitment, more partners, less meaning and open sexual relationships.

Religious people holding more traditional values shouldn't be described as regressive, that implies less developed. I don't think a society where sexual gratification is so front and center represents a more developed culture.

That is, when people are openly having sex in the street, in public, and society is patting itself on the back about how forward thinking we are - I don't think it will be as developed a culture.

Refining yourself from a creature pleasing instinctual desires into a member of society is cultured. Again, Hollywood has driven the narrative and normalisation of behavior we want to do because they do it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

“It’s his religious belief” is an irrelevant copout. If two people say the same thing, yet one says “it’s my religious belief!”, they can’t claim some sort of special treatment. We’re a secular society. What flies behind closed doors at your church might not fly in public. People might, you know, get offended.

If I ran a large, public-facing company and one of the most public faces was broadcasting that shit to hundreds of thousands of people, I’d sack him too.

 

[The_Ru]

Hollywood has played a big part in "progressing" society towards less commitment, more partners, less meaning and open sexual relationships.

Religious people holding more traditional values shouldn't be described as regressive, that implies less developed. I don't think a society where sexual gratification is so front and center represents a more developed culture.

That is, when people are openly having sex in the street, in public, and society is patting itself on the back about how forward thinking we are - I don't think it will be as developed a culture.

Refining yourself from a creature pleasing instinctual desires into a member of society is cultured. Again, Hollywood has driven the narrative and normalisation of behavior we want to do because they do it.

They are not regressive just because they're traditional, they're regressive because they are reflections of an attitude which is out of step with modern societal norms. Marriage is traditional, but I wouldn't describe advocating for marriage as regressive.

Permissive societies existed long before movies were made. It's a long bow to draw to suggest that somehow Hollywood is the major driver of sexual behaviour. I suggest you read about the catalysts for the sexual revolution of the 60s.

Regardless, this argument is not about "having sex in the street" it's about the vilification of people because of their sexual orientation. Let's not conflate the two shall we?

 

[Shadow89]

Biblical literacy and general knowledge of orthodox Christian theology is probably at its lowest point so I'll try and explain some things to people since there's a lot of people in here who think they're actually really clever because they throw out trite and stale "bububu mixed fabrics!" lines.

The standard Christian sexual ethic, which while more complex than this, is essentially that sexual activity is permitted (and encouraged!) within a consensual marriage relationship between one man and one woman and forbidden outside of that relationship. The justification for this is that this context aligns with God's design and is the best environment for human flourishing and happiness.

This sexual ethic was not developed out of the Old Testament Laws given to the theocratic nation of Israel but out of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the books of the New Testament

Christians are not, have not, and never will be bound by the judicial and ceremonial laws found in Leviticus. These laws (such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, mixing fabrics, ritualistic cleansing, the penalty of stoning for offences, etc, etc) were given to a specific people at a specific time for a specific purpose. This has been standard, orthodox Christian doctrine for two thousand years. In fact, the early church had this very problem which is outlined in the New Testament book of Acts (which is a history of the establishment of the Christian church in its first 20 years). As hundreds and thousands of Gentiles (non-Jews) joined what was essentially a Jewish movement, there were questions on what that meant - did they have to get circumcised? Did they need to follow Jewish law? And the answer was no. Although, and this is pertinent to this topic, they were advised to abstain from sexual immorality.

So no, you're not actually pointing out some huge contradiction when you say that any Christian opposed to homosexuality should actually be stoning people for working on the sabbath or not wearing mixed fabrics. If that was all it took I don't think this whole Christianity thing would have lasted two thousand years and come to spread to every corner of the globe.

Anyway, as for Israel Folau - he lacks a certain, uh, tact when it comes to his evangelistic efforts, but as a professing Christian, it's certainly a sobering thought to think that Christians who hold to the basic Christian sexual ethic are being pushed out of public life.

I also find it an interesting reflection on society that this is considered an offence that will basically see him barred from all sporting competitions in Australia and yet you run down the list of offences we have no trouble over looking and find some horrific things. Smash a woman in the face with a glass? No worries, we'll welcome you back with open arms. Go on a rampage, invade a home and threaten to kill someone? Meh, it was two years ago!

Christians are also certainly not the only people to hold to a sexual ethic that precludes homosexual activities. I mean I know the answer, but I'm always curious as to how Islam gets a pass on this in modern Western culture.

See this is where Christianity always fails when philosophical arguments are made against it.

- Christians believe God created the world, all the animals, humanity and nature
- Christians also believe that God is omnipotent and that all of existence is part of his 'grand plan'
- Homosexual activity in nature exists between animals, and even plants
- There are no known species of animal that do not engage in homosexual activity


Either, God created homosexuality or God is not omnipotent. If God created homosexuality and it has continued to exist, then man wrote in isolation the 'all-knowing' book that abhors homosexual behaviour, and it was not 'God's word.'. If God didn't create homosexuality and it exists so widely throughout nature and humanity, then he is not omnipotent and his words throughout the bibles can't be deemed as absolute truth, because he is not 'all-seeing and 'all-knowing.'

This also implies to Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, or any other organized religion that boycotts homosexuality.

 

[iluvparis]

My main takeaway from this is that A LOT of people need to go back and read their employment contracts if they think that Folau is being ostracized or used as a scapegoat.

I would say hundreds of thousands of Australian's would also have their employment terminated for similar behavior (or less!) on social media.

 

[Jibroni]

Free pass for what exactly? Expressing his religious views?

His tweet read:

Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators... HELL AWAITS YOU! Repent!

This is not Folau's own personal hate speech. It's religious doctrine. So if Folau's tweet is deemed unacceptable, then how about we ban the Holy Bible and ban Christianity while we're at it? It's a homophobic belief system. Same goes for Islam and the Koran.

People should stop picking on individual church-goers like Israel Folau and take issue with his church. Utterly spineless of our society to single out Folau while turning a blind eye to the source material and allowing hundreds of thousands of people to continue to practise their institutionalised homophobic hate mongering.

How about we take a stand this Easter and picket the churches on Good Friday and Easter Sunday?

And why not add the Salvation Army, Anglicare and other Christian establishments why you’re at it.

Comprising the freedoms of of gay person in the West compared to the East is like chalk to cheese.

 

[M Malice]

Religious belief is an anachronistic abomination, the sooner it goes the way of the dinosaur the better.

 

[RudyBlue]

Polynesian Man has Christian Beliefs

 

[LightTower4]

Religious belief is an anachronistic abomination, the sooner it goes the way of the dinosaur the better.

Alas, it will probably take another asteroid to get rid of it.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I reckon the smart money will be on him playing for the wallabies in Japan at the end of the year. He's probably our only world class player

David Pocock and Will Genia go alright. Hell, even our second best 7 would be considered world class by many.

I reckon he might be playing in Japan, but probably not with the Wallabies.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hey Mods.
Is this really main board worthy, this should be continued on the SRC forum.
Can achieve little more here.

 

[kranky al]

People are offended due to listing homosexuality but it was written with another 6-7 words.
Why are the other words not offensive only homosexual....double standards

Did he take drugs, bash people

While you speak of double standards

Leviticus - which is what he uses to justify his rantings against gays - expressly forbids tattoos - of which he has a full sleeve.

More cherry pickers than a power company carpark.


But you are right in the sense that

a warning to “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters” that “hell awaits” unless they “repent.”

more than just gays - lets unpick it shall we?

Pick which of those above that you do not choose?

Is it starting to unravel for you yet?